UPDATE: After this was published the Tampa Monitor was made aware Council Chair Alan Clendenin intends to motion to continue this vote until July 23rd CRA meeting. In a text message he stated “negotiations continue behind the scenes.” When asked what’s changed in the MOU he replied “we shall see.”

First a reminder, the vote that was continued until Thursday June 11 is to approve a non-binding, four-party agreement between the Tampa Bay Rays, the City of Tampa, Hillsborough County and the Tampa Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) to fund the development of a baseball stadium. The CRA role in the funding would be to issue a $100 million bond in 2029 in which the Rays would first pay “rent” to cover the principal and interest on the loan until the remainder of the project began generating enough Tax Increment Funding (TIF) to pay for the bond.

That is the incentive to build out the multi-use portion of the development. If they don’t develop anything but a stadium, they are paying back the $100 million plus interest, not the Drew Park CRA district. If they successfully build out the remainder of the project parcels within the CRA district and it generates lots of new tax revenue, they get a 100 million dollars.

But a lot has to happen for that scenario to play out not the least of would be as outlined in the MOU Part D, number 9 – “the CRA shall obtain, at its own cost, a written opinion from independent bond counsel and independent CRA counsel” to confirm this is even legal under state law. Either city attorneys still aren’t sure or until the Community Redevelopment Plan (CRP) is updated it’s not legal or some combination thereof. Either way, agreeing to the MOU still allows for due diligence on the board’s part prior to approving any funding.

Which gets to a point worth making — a lot has been said about “the CRA Board didn’t negotiate this” — one person who did negotiate for the Tampa CRA was their attorney Clifford Shepard. Attorney Shepard isn’t just their CRA lawyer, he’s General Counsel for several other CRAs as well as the Florida Redevelopment Association. Which is why section D of the MOU spells out all of the steps that would be necessary for the CRA to provide any type of funding to the Rays stadium development and exactly how non-binding the MOU vote is in relation to the Tampa CRA. Mr.Shepard stated during the special call meeting for the vote that everything he proposed as to legal language was accepted, otherwise he wouldn’t have presented it to the board.

In addition, procedurally the CRA Board doesn’t negotiate any deal. A developer submits an application, CRA staff work with the developer to meet eligibility and then the project is presented to the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC). Sometimes staff make a recommendation for a funding level below what the applicant is requesting. The CAC can then accept staff’s recommendation, the applicants request or vote on a different number. Occasionally if the CAC votes down an application the applicant reworks their proposal to answer CAC concerns and brings it back. Often it’s taken directly to the board for a vote. And sometimes the board follows staff’s recommendation and sometimes they follow the CAC vote and sometimes they vote their own way. In very rare occasions they condition their vote on a minor change in the proposal. But more often, they are voted on up or down. Rarely down. And one will argue that it’s $100 million and that Ybor Harbor was only $35 million or Gasworx wasn’t bonded so there’s a difference and they’re welcome to that argument. The truth is the special project funding request process still has problems the CRA Board are trying to resolve. Thursday’s agenda has an item related to that very ongoing discussion.

Background

The Tampa Monitor has written extensively about the Rays stadium proposal and the role the CRA might play starting with the stadium sized elephant in the room in April. Noted then:

When the Tampa Monitor inquired who was negotiating on behalf of the CRA in this process, the mayor’s office simply said they were still gathering information. Clendenin stated “CRA staff works closely with city staff, they are city employees.” Carlson believes Chief of Staff John Bennett is handling the negotiations.

The May CRA Board preview touched on the Drew Park CRA and we tried to break down the numbers and provided an opinion on the MOU vote. We also re-published Allison Hewitt’s memo to council that expanded on her public comments regarding the CRA and the stadium at the workshop.

The bottom line

None of that matters though if there aren’t 4 votes to move the process forward. Board member Bill Carlson has already voted to approve the non-binding MOU as member of Tampa City Council but has said he’s a no on the CRA vote and a no on any final vote. That he only voted yes to give Rays more time to possibly change the mind of one or more of the 3 no votes: Council members Charlie Miranda, Guido Maniscalco and Lynn Hurtak. Considering there wasn’t a motion to reconsider the MOU vote at the last regular meeting, there’s no indication anyone has changed their stance on the project.

Prior to Thursday’s vote there will be a public meeting of the Drew Park CRA district CAC with city/CRA staff and the Rays Wednesday evening. As the Tampa Monitor has highlighted previously, prior to the MOU vote the Rays had not reached out to Drew Park as a community or as a CAC. This ostensibly will be the Rays’ chance to spell out in more detail their plan for the multi-use side of the proposed development separate from the stadium and hear directly the neighborhood concerns.

How that might affect anyone’s vote the next morning is yet to be seen.